Minecraft Forums

Quote from jdc997»

Lamborghinis: New "Modern" texture pack/official add-on for the non-PC editions; replaces minecarts.
AK47s: Could go texture pack or add-on route to replace bows, or could be wielded by enemies in a brand-new dimension.
NSFW: Okay, you got me. Make that "everything that isn't largely offensive can be improved to the point of implementation."

Remember, I didn't say 10/10 or say it would have to go into the PC version, I just said it could become good enough to be feasibly implemented. I don't consider parrots or llamas to be 10/10 features, but they're still in the game. Really, very few suggestions are 10/10.

This section is only for PC edition. And those are still pretty silly ideas. The point is that sometimes we fundamentally don't like an idea and that's okay.

Quote from Gamelord»

This section is only for PC edition. And those are still pretty silly ideas. The point is that sometimes we fundamentally don't like an idea and that's okay.

This section is, but not this guide, unless there's a suggestion forum for every other edition that also has its own guide that I don't know about.

If you don't like an idea, that's fine, but if that is the case double-check to make sure what you say about it is as objective as possible.

Quote from jdc997»

This section is, but not this guide

The guide is for the section. It's in the title.

Quote from Gamelord»

The guide is for the section. It's in the title.

Okay, your right on this point, though I don't see any reason why this guide couldn't be applicable to the other sections. I still believe all suggestions have some merit, but there's no point in arguing this any further.

Quote from jdc997»

Okay, your right on this point, though I don't see any reason why this guide couldn't be applicable to the other sections. I still believe all suggestions have some merit, but there's no point in arguing this any further.

All concepts have merit. Not all suggestions do, though.

I don't find any merit in "Can we please add thirst for realism." mostly because any merit there would have been has been thoroughly exhausted by 300+ previous threads that said the exact same thing if not some facsimile.

So, I'm all on board for the concept. There's much depth in simple nuance. For this alone, discussion can happen. A garbage post that some kid did 3 minutes before he has to catch the bus to school? Not so much. No merits there, in fact. Demerits, serious and soberingly harsh demerits.

Quote from yoshi9048»

All concepts have merit. Not all suggestions do, though.

I don't find any merit in "Can we please add thirst for realism." mostly because any merit there would have been has been thoroughly exhausted by 300+ previous threads that said the exact same thing if not some facsimile.

So, I'm all on board for the concept. There's much depth in simple nuance. For this alone, discussion can happen. A garbage post that some kid did 3 minutes before he has to catch the bus to school? Not so much. No merits there, in fact. Demerits, serious and soberingly harsh demerits.

Well, yes, I mean all suggestions have some merit in terms of their basic concept. For example, going back to the AK47, the concept is a stronger, more expensive ranged weapon. While AK47s may be a bit too futuristic for Minecraft, the concept can be adjusted to fit.

Quote from jdc997»

Well, yes, I mean all suggestions have some merit in terms of their basic concept.

Ah, in that case, I agree. Though I argue that a good concept doesn't mean a good suggestion. Lots of really awful media have really good concepts. Garbage is garbage though; and I'm not going to praise a suggestion's concept when it fails at execution.

When looking at the suggestions forums, I'm frequently reminded of Teresa Nielsen Hayden's (in)famous post "Slushkiller", about her job as an editor. She includes 13 reasons why a manuscript gets rejected. The list starts with (1) "The author is functionally illiterate", continues through various shades of bad writing such as (4) "Author is on bad terms with the Muse of Language" and (8) "It’s nice that the author is working on his/her problems, but the process would be better served by seeing a shrink than by writing novels". Eventually she moves on to questions of buy-in, like (11) "Someone could publish this book, but we don't see why it should be us", and (13) "It’s a good book, but the house isn’t going to get behind it...".

The point here is that there are different levels of problem that suggestions can have. Bad presentation is one thing, but there are also suggestions that are odious (the phrase "mowing down villagers" is a good hint), or fundamentally unbalanced, or don't fit within vanilla Minecraft's developed theme and character. We can help people with spelling, grammar, organization. We sometimes can give hints about balance, if the OP can get past "I want I want I want!". But sometimes we need to recognize that a concept is better suited for a mod than a change to vanilla, and some of those aren't even good mod ideas.

Yes, everyone's got some good in them, but that good is not necessarily reflected in a particular suggestion. Some suggestions really are just bad, or worse than bad. Some are fundamentally incompatible with vanilla, or even with the game as a whole. And some, without being actively noxious or disruptive, offer no reason why anyone but maybe the OP would put that in their game. If we provide appropriate feedback, some of those posters may improve their work in future. But sometimes, the "appropriate feedback" really is something like "the vanilla bow's firepower already pushes the limits of balance", "that would ruin the game for everyone else", or even "that's disgusting and horrible".

Quote from Acknid»

Some people refuse to see their mistakes. They just want to argue argue argue and never understand that the problem is the suggestion and not us. You think Herobrine thread #223 or Make new combat optional thread #482 would be enough to spark something in people's heads but not really.

Well, yes. Unfortunately, that's part of the human condition. IME the best way to approach that is to avoid getting personal, but do make the point that "their" idea has come up many times before, and the response is going to be the same this time as last time or the time before. We can also suggest that they search the threads for some previous examples and the responses -- if we have enough time or have saved a few examples, maybe even provide some links.

Then there's fresh new accounts that read this guide, and then do the exact opposite of what it says just to mess with us but not enough as to elude the mods, because apparently people are that bored in life. Anyway, people hear the words "Army of creepers" of their heads and just go with it without even thinking about how it truly would play out because people get all bubbly and overexcited over their own ideas.

Likewise part of dealing with humanity at large. You do what you can, and let the rest be. (q.v., "the Serenity Prayer")

Quote from Acknid»

Guide should mention to not just cater a suggestion toward yourself or a specific type of player. "Oh boy if you love classic MC ur gonna love this!" What if I didn't like the old version of the game?

Then read the rest of the thread and see if you'll like it anyway.

Quote from McRiveter»

Something tells me the point of his post flew straight over you.

No, not really. I was making a counterpoint - that whether or not you like a suggestion is not predetermined by whether or not the OP specifically targets you in their sales pitch.

So, a few weeks ago someone brought up formatting for suggestions. However, I've been thinking, what about formatting for critiques?

Like suggestions, no two critics will have the same method to give criticism, but in my experience and education, this has been the most effective at getting the suggester to think, reply, and make positive changes:

Start with positive feedback. ("Well, redstone tools would definitely make redstone more valuable and give people who don't care about mechanisms more use for them...")

Then, tell the user what is wrong with their suggestion. If possible, try to balance your critique by not focusing much more on the bad than the good. However, if the suggestion is really bad, this might not be possible, and you may have to go more in-depth with what is wrong. ("However, redstone is a dust, which doesn't make a lot of sense for equipment, and, like all other ores, it already has a primary use: electrical engineering. Unfortunately I'm going to have to say Minimal Support.")

Finally, end on a positive note. ("Still, it's clear you put a lot of effort into this, and it's a relatively good idea for a first suggestion, so points for effort.")

Also, try to stay calm and uplifting through your entire critique. Mocking the OP, being sassy, smug, or condescending, or getting angry is a sure way to get the suggester to stop taking you seriously.

Just as you don't want to strap a suggester down to a specific way of creating a suggestion; you don't want to strap a critic down to a specific way of providing feedback.

We're not all plucky and bubbly; and shouldn't be expected to be.

While I personally advocate including positives; some people are just blunt; and there is nothing wrong with that (shame on you if you think there is). It's just a personality type. I like to get to the point. One question, one answer. I've just been forced to elaborate on the point where it's become habit. Therefore, if I see a problem; I say it's a problem. I try to use tact to dull the blow, but at the end of the day, I'm not going to change who I am simply because someone is easily offended.

You already have read my stance on polarizing opinions; minimal support or partial support may as well be no support for all the good it does for OP. If a suggestion is to a point where you wouldn't want it in a practical sense; then a "minimal support" is dishonest. In the above "redstone tools" case; there is no practical change the OP could do where you would go from "minimal support" to "full support" and any attempts are wasted effort. It's better to just say "no support" than to build up some false hope in OP. No offense meant.

Quote from yoshi9048»

Just as you don't want to strap a suggester down to a specific way of creating a suggestion; you don't want to strap a critic down to a specific way of providing feedback.

Which is why I kept my format pretty minimalistic. I could go into more detail, but starting and ending on a positive note, and having the middle be more negative, helps to convince the OP.

We're not all plucky and bubbly; and shouldn't be expected to be.

Well, of course not. You can still be polite and respectful and not be "plucky and bubbly," as you put it.

While I personally advocate including positives; some people are just blunt; and there is nothing wrong with that (shame on you if you think there is). It's just a personality type. I like to get to the point. One question, one answer. I've just been forced to elaborate on the point where it's become habit. Therefore, if I see a problem; I say it's a problem. I try to use tact to dull the blow, but at the end of the day, I'm not going to change who I am simply because someone is easily offended.

You can point out positives and still be blunt. Notice that in my examples, I still pointed out the problems and didn't try to make them sound like less of a problem than they actually were. While it may not be wrong to be blunt, however, it's not always effective.

You already have read my stance on polarizing opinions; minimal support or partial support may as well be no support for all the good it does for OP. If a suggestion is to a point where you wouldn't want it in a practical sense; then a "minimal support" is dishonest. In the above "redstone tools" case; there is no practical change the OP could do where you would go from "minimal support" to "full support" and any attempts are wasted effort. It's better to just say "no support" than to build up some false hope in OP. No offense meant.

I see minimal or partial support as a way of saying the suggestion can still be fixed, though obviously the former is far less likely than the latter to be improved. It would be wrong to say a suggestion that originally had general partial support has never been improved to a general "full support" suggestion (this really goes back to my philosophy that all suggestions/concepts can be improved, but I'm not about to argue that point again).

While you may not be actively trying to offend the OP, he sees it as offense, and depending on his maturity, he may or may not listen to you at that point. If you are really trying to help him improve his suggestion/suggesting skills, then trying to avoid offense helps.